[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 162-170]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                SPENDING CUTS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate an opportunity to talk about a 
subject that I think has been on a lot of Americans' minds over 
particularly the last couple of years, and it's the subject of spending 
cuts in the Federal Government.
  Now, unless people are perhaps tuned in to some other planet, they 
realize

[[Page 163]]

that the Federal Government is spending more money than we take in, and 
so we're running all of these deficits. Therefore, the idea is that we 
need to do some spending cuts. So that's what we wanted to talk about 
here for a little while, and I'm joined by some good friends and some 
very trusted Congressmen on this subject.
  Just to try to frame what we're talking about a little bit--and I 
usually have some charts to go along with this, but the charts haven't 
been printed yet--if you take a look, these are pretty simple numbers. 
If you take a look at the spending projection for 2011, it's $3.834 
trillion, and the income projection is $2.567 trillion. The two numbers 
aren't the same, as you notice, and basically we're spending more than 
a trillion, close to a trillion, trillion and a half dollars that we 
don't have. And that suggests, for most Americans that have some level 
of common sense, that we're going to have to make some cuts in 
spending. So that's the overall subject, and I think it's one that gets 
everybody's attention and that we need to give some thought to.
  Now, obviously, right off the beginning of the bat, the new party, 
the Republicans, are running the House, and we're trying to start off 
setting a good note in being fiscally responsible. There's a fund 
that's allocated to each Congressman for them to run their office, to 
make their airplane flights, to pay phone bills, and things like that. 
We cut that 5 percent just as, in the sense, an indication of the fact 
that we're serious about doing this spending cut. That certainly 
doesn't get us to where we have to go, but at least it's a start.
  There are a number of different ways we can approach this subject, 
but one of the other things that we'll be voting on this week, aside 
from the 5 percent cut in congressional budgets, is the fact that we 
want to get rid of this tremendously expensive government takeover of 
the health care in America. It's known as ObamaCare, I suppose. And I'm 
joined by good friend who has joined me on the floor many times in the 
past 2 years, a medical doctor from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, and he is 
somebody who knows, inside and out, not only the medical profession but 
this bill which has the government taking over all of health care.
  Now, as you can imagine, that would be expensive. It would be 
expensive to American citizens. It would be expensive to businesses and 
expensive to the Federal Government. So, one place we can start talking 
about spending cuts is what we'll be voting on before too long, which 
is to get rid of this government takeover of health care, and for that 
reason, I would like to recognize my good friend, Dr.--Congressman--
Gingrey from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
from Missouri yielding, and I know that when he was referring to my 
medical expertise in regard to knowing that subject inside and out, no 
pun was intended when he mentioned that.
  I do know a lot more about health care, probably, than I do about 
government spending, but one thing's for sure, Madam Speaker, as the 
gentleman pointed out: We are spending way too much money. And I think 
the figures today, this year, last year, we spent a third more than we 
took in. I mean, you know, we have a revenue stream from taxation of 
the American people, and yet we went beyond that by $1 trillion of 
borrowed money; and, of course, of the nondomestic creditors, the 
largest one is China. They hold a lot of our debt. They happen to be, 
now, the second largest economy in the world at $9 trillion GDP.
  We had about a $15 trillion GDP, but the thing that is so scary and 
frightening about that is we owe $14 trillion. So our debt to GDP ratio 
is approaching 100 percent. So, you know, when we stand up, Madam 
Speaker, as we're doing right now and talk about this issue, we're 
almost in panic, and we should be because we're right on the precipice, 
right on the edge of becoming part of the PIGS acronym--Portugal, 
Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain.

                              {time}  1440

  And, you know, we point the finger at them. But goodness gracious, 
it's like the Bible scripture that I'm sure the Representative from 
Missouri probably knows by heart. But it goes something like, If you've 
got a plank in your own eye, you shouldn't be pointing out the speck in 
somebody else's. We've got a plank in our own eye. And this is why in 
this 112th Congress, we have a huge challenge, don't we, my colleagues? 
We have a huge challenge. We're up to it. We're up to it, and I hope 
that we are going to be up to it on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. AKIN. So let's say that we get what you've been working for, and 
let's just say by some great miracle that we were able to stop that 
ObamaCare. Now that would save a whole, whole lot of money, wouldn't 
it, in terms of--
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, reclaiming the time that the gentleman 
yielded to me, Madam Speaker. Absolutely. The gentleman from 
Washington, our esteemed colleague, a physician, Mr. McDermott was on 
the floor a little earlier talking about, well, what we were trying to 
do in repealing ObamaCare, or the formal recognition of that bill, 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
  Mr. AKIN. I call it socialized medicine. That's easier, but go ahead.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. That's a lot easier, socialized medicine, 
Madam Speaker; but that's essentially what it is. That is essentially 
what the former majority party was pushing towards.
  But the gentleman who spoke said, Well, it's a stunt. These 
Republicans know they can't repeal ObamaCare. And, furthermore, even if 
they did, it would be at a cost of $200 billion. And what I pointed out 
to him, Madam Speaker, as he was leaving the floor was, You know, 
that's really interesting. It's going to cost us $200 billion, if 
that's accurate, to repeal while it cost us $1.1 trillion to enact. So 
you can literally go broke saving money, can't you. And by golly, we're 
going to repeal it because that's what the American people want.
  If we fall short in our efforts, despite 110 percent on this side of 
the aisle or, well, in this body and in the other body, then we have a 
backup plan B. And I know my colleagues would like to talk about that.
  So I will yield back to the gentleman from Missouri, and let's 
continue the discussion.
  Mr. AKIN. Well, I appreciate your medical expertise and your 
overview. Obviously, if the Federal Government isn't jumping into 
taking over all of health care, there is going to be a lot more in the 
private sector. We will maybe get into that a little bit about what 
really should the Federal Government be doing, and what should we allow 
States to do, and what should we allow the free market economy to do.
  It seems like the way things are working today, we've got Georgia 
very well represented. And Congressman Tom Graves from Georgia has 
joined us before on the floor. You always have an interesting and 
articulate perspective. This is kind of a pet topic for a lot of us 
that think that government isn't a servant anymore, but it's the 
master. So if you say, Hey, let's start cutting government, that's kind 
of an interesting topic. I would like you to join us, please, Tom.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Well, I thank the gentleman from Missouri. And 
you're right. I mean, today, what a breath of fresh air to hear the 
syllables of the Constitution recited from Members all throughout this 
body, leading into this topic and this discussion because we really 
want to address spending cuts and the proper role of government. What 
better way to start it than reciting the Constitution today. And 
hopefully Members of this body listened and heard. They didn't get up 
and just read a sentence or two or an amendment. They actually consumed 
it in their mind and are starting to understand what it means. Because 
for too long, the Federal Government has been kicking the can down the 
road on spending. Saying, Oh, elect me; elect me, and we will cut 
spending. When you look at the data, it's clear: deficit spending has 
occurred at an average, just in the last fiscal year, of probably $110 
billion a month deficit spending.

[[Page 164]]


  Mr. AKIN. Oh, wait. And $110 billion a month. That used to be the 
deficit in a whole year.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Right.
  Mr. AKIN. Wow, we are setting all kinds of records in the wrong 
direction.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. You are right. And that leads up to this 
discussion that we are hearing now in the media which I don't know 
where they've been over the last several months talking about the debt 
ceiling. Well, the reason we're approaching and about to pierce the 
debt ceiling is this deficit spending that has occurred from the 
previous leadership here in the House as well as the administration who 
is still there.
  And as we approach this debt ceiling, we have got to push spending 
cuts more and more and more. And I'm thankful that I just was sworn in 
for the second time yesterday--
  Mr. AKIN. We're glad to have you back again, and we thank the good 
people of Georgia for making a good decision there.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Well, thank you. But being appointed to the 
Appropriations Committee, it is clear, and I have made it clear to my 
constituents, that I am not going on as a spender. I'm going on as a 
saver. It seems for far too long Members would seek to be on 
appropriations because they wanted to spend money. Well, guess what. 
It's a new day, a new era. And it's a just fresh day when you have 
Members going on to say, Here is how we are going to save money. So 
what a great debate we are going to have in the next several weeks.
  Mr. AKIN. That's good. Now, let's get on to this just a little bit 
more. Let's try to get into the details in terms of procedurally. Okay, 
now you've got a new Congress. Republicans are in the majority, and 
we've got the problem. When you take a look at the numbers and we're 
spending a third more than what we're taking in, we know we've got to 
do some cutting. But yet one of the things that people want to pin us 
down on, okay, you guys are such big mouths about cutting spending, 
what are you not going to fund? Because there is going to be some group 
that is going to get mad at you. So how are you going to approach it?
  And one thing that I know in State governments they do sometimes is 
they say, Well, what we've got to do is, we're 10 percent over budget, 
so we need to cut 10 percent off of everything. That makes it seem to 
be fair. And that would be one way you might approach what we've got 
going on.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Oh, you are absolutely right. I think what 
we've heard about repealing ObamaCare--yesterday I introduced the 
legislation again to defund it, to take away all authorizing funds 
going to the legislation as well, which is another step forward. You 
know, why don't we defund some czars. That's a whole other discussion 
that we've all seen.
  And then as we move back to those 2008 levels, and we might need to 
go even just a little bit further and begin cutting more and more and 
more, I mean, are the decisions going to be difficult? Sure, they are. 
But that's why your constituents and mine elected us to come here and 
make those tough decisions.
  Mr. AKIN. Congressman Graves, let me lay out two ways you could 
approach it. If you've got just a little bit you've got to cut, you 
could maybe take a little bit from everything. But there's another way 
you could take a look at it when you've got to cut one-third. One way 
you could do it would be to say, What are the essential functions that 
the Federal Government has to do, and what are things that we really 
don't have to do because a State could do it or the private sector 
could do it?
  I yield to the Chair.


                         Swearing in of Members

  The SPEAKER. If Representative Sessions of Texas and Representative 
Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania would present themselves in the well.
  Messrs. Sessions and Fitzpatrick appeared at the bar of the House, 
and the Speaker administered the oath of office to them as follows:
  Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; 
that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or 
purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the 
duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you God.
  The SPEAKER. Congratulations. You are now officially Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Herrera Beutler). The gentleman from 
Missouri may resume.
  Mr. AKIN. So we were just talking about now you've got the situation 
with the Federal Government spending a third more than it takes in. So 
we've got to figure out some way of how we're going to skin this cat.
  And one way is to just try to take a certain 10 percent or whatever 
the percentage is. Actually, it would be 33 percent off of everything 
or whatever. Or what you could say would be, what are the things that 
we have to do, and what are the things that maybe are nice but we can't 
afford it, and what are the things that may be actually 
unconstitutional. And I suspect when you're one-third over budget, it's 
going to be hard to just do a set percentage across the board. I 
suspect we're going to get into, I think, some very interesting 
questions about what's really constitutional and does the Federal 
Government really have to do that function? Maybe it's an important 
thing to get done, but maybe the Federal Government shouldn't do it. So 
I just wondered if you wanted to jump in on that subject.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Yes, I would be happy to just add a little bit 
more to that.
  I think a few approaches you could take when you ask the question, Is 
it duplicative? Is it occurring somewhere else? Is another agency or 
Department doing it? And that is after you've cleared the hurdle. Is it 
a role of the Federal Government in general itself? Then you could also 
ask, is it something you could devolve back to the States? Have we 
usurped the States in which I would think many Members of our 
conference here would probably agree. In some cases, the Federal 
Government has overstepped its bounds, and it's time to remove 
ourselves from the States and allow the States to take over.
  But you know, from a business owner's perspective, what if you looked 
at the Department heads or the agency heads, and you said, You go back 
and you cut 25 percent and you bring back your recommendations; and 
then you show us a budget estimate with 20 percent cuts and then one 
with 10 percent, empower those agency heads to make those decisions, to 
analyze their Departments and come back.

                              {time}  1450

  While we're also on the theme of physicians, we're taking a surgical 
approach as well as pulling out those unnecessary programs. So that 
would be some approaches I would take.
  Mr. AKIN. Well, those are some great recommendations here. To 
reinforce what you've said, I didn't have time to get some of the 
charts that we normally have printed, but here's some examples.
  We've got 342 economic development programs. Do you think we really 
need 342 of them? Talk about duplicative. That seems to make your 
point.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. With unemployment at what?
  Mr. AKIN. 10 percent or whatever. 130 programs serving the disabled. 
Do we need 130? Maybe it would be better to consolidate, just do a 
couple of good ones.
  And then 130 programs serving at-risk youth. And so these are all of 
these things where you say it doesn't even make common sense. We have 
to really start getting into analyzing, first of all, should we even be 
doing it, and then, if we should, do we need hundreds of programs doing 
something that should be done with one or two.
  I see that Dr. Gingrey is back at it again. He just couldn't sit 
still when we talk about cutting things. So just welcome to the 
discussion.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman

[[Page 165]]

yielding back to me. And I know we've got two other colleagues on the 
floor that want to speak. I can only stay for a few more minutes 
because of a prior engagement, so thank you for giving me an 
opportunity kind of in front of the queue, if you will.
  But I'll tell you, one of the things in regard to how you cut, is it 
by picking and choosing, or in one fell swoop across the board?
  You know, we just passed a bill, last vote of the day, in regard to 
our own budgets. And that was a 5 percent across-the-board cut, Madam 
Speaker, in our member representational account, our expense account 
that we're allotted each year to pay the salaries of our staff members, 
and to have a round trip flight back to our districts once a week. And 
those budgets vary a little bit, depending on, obviously somebody from 
California is going to have more travel expense than somebody like 
myself and Representative Graves from Georgia. But we just basically 
voted to cut 5 percent.
  And I, quite honestly, and this question that has come up, Madam 
Speaker, my colleagues talk about, well, how do you do it? I just think 
we more and more need to look at this thing and say there are no sacred 
cows. And let these Departments make their case for why maybe there 
shouldn't be an across-the-board, 2 percent, 3 percent, 4 percent cut. 
I know I voted in favor of that every time it comes up on these 
appropriations bills. We didn't get to vote on any in the 111th 
Congress because our Democratic colleagues didn't get their work done. 
But this is something we need to really look at carefully.
  I know that most people, Madam Speaker, are reluctant to talk about 
cutting Homeland Security and cutting national defense, particularly 
when we have two wars going on and certainly not wanting to cut the 
veterans benefits. But there's waste, fraud and abuse and duplication 
of things across every spectrum of this Federal Government. If we're 
going to get serious about it, we need to have an adult conversation.
  And, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, that includes entitlements as 
well, because if we don't address entitlements, we're looking at one-
sixth of the budget; and we're never going to get there just addressing 
that small portion of the budget.
  With that, I yield back and continue to listen to my colleagues.
  Mr. AKIN. Hey, Doctor, it's a treat to have you on the floor. And I'm 
going to run over to, moving a little bit from Georgia to the West, to 
the great State of Utah, and Congressman Bishop, you've joined us on 
the floor a number of times. And one of the questions that--let's say 
that you were on the Budget Committee or something, and you're trying 
to prioritize, how are you going to--guns and butter, how are you going 
to prioritize defense versus endowment for the arts or whatever it is?
  How do we crack this nut about trying to reduce Federal spending? I 
would appreciate your perspective.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me try and hit, for just one moment, two 
potential areas to address that particular question, and it goes back 
to the fact that we did read the Constitution on the floor today.
  You know it's amazing, as P.J. O'Rourke once said, that the 
Constitution is 16 pages, which is the operator's manual for 300 
million people. The operator's manual for the Toyota Camry, in 
contrast, is four times as large, and it only seats five.
  But you also contrast that with what we have done in the lame duck 
session when the Senate's omnibus spending bill, it's not 16 pages, it 
was 1,924 pages. Those are the kinds of issues we're talking about. And 
I think if we really want an answer of how we make those decisions, we 
go back to the document that was read this morning.
  The general welfare clause today usually puts the emphasis on the 
word ``welfare.'' When they wrote that thing, they put the emphasis on 
the word ``general.'' What the Federal Government should do is that 
which affects all of us.
  Monroe, Madison, Jackson vetoed road projects because they said those 
road projects didn't meet the general welfare. When Savannah burned to 
the ground, Congress had a great deal of empathy for Savannah, but it 
did not actually appropriate any money for Savannah because they said 
giving money to Savannah to rebuild would simply help Savannah and was 
not general welfare.
  Now, I made this speech once on the floor a couple of years ago, and 
I got a nice letter, kind of, from a lady in Alabama who took me to 
task and listed all the programs that she thought were viable and good 
and she wanted continued. And I said, ma'am, you actually missed the 
ultimate point. The point is not should these programs be available for 
citizens. The point is, who should be responsible for providing those 
programs?
  Not every idea has to germinate, be funded, be appropriated, be 
regulated from Washington. The States are equally competent. And if, 
indeed, we divided our responsibilities together, we could provide 
better services for the people for a cheaper price.
  Now, Mr. Akin, if I could just give one second of a simple example. 
David Walker has written a great book called ``The Rebirth of 
Federalism,'' where he simply made the effect that dangling money we 
don't have in front of cash-starved States does not necessarily help 
out the States or us, or the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for 
both levels of government.
  For example, he said when we put conditional grants to States with 
strings attached that eventually become regulations and mandates, it 
undercuts both the inter-level cooperation between those two bodies, 
and it is a term he invented called ``creeping conditionalism,'' which 
means the cost to the taxpayer actually increases.
  By doing his estimates, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986 cost the 
States $2 billion to $3 billion more than the States would have spent 
to provide their own safe drinking water. From '83 to '90 he estimated 
that the regulations imposed by the Federal Government was $9 billion 
to $13 billion more in local taxes that did not provide a benefit to 
the citizens. It was just the creeping cost to them.
  So our mandates, supposedly with free money given to States, end up 
costing the taxpayer not only for the free money we don't have, but 
costs the States to do more than they would have done or needed to do 
to actually address the problem.
  Mr. AKIN. To meet the mandates. You know, interestingly, and I can't 
help but piggy back just a little bit on your point, gentleman, it used 
to be a very boring place to be a Congressman down here because there 
were almost no laws on the books. Do you know the Federal laws, to 
begin with, in terms of laws about right and wrong, were, one of them 
was a law against piracy on the high seas. Another one was against 
counterfeiting. Another one was a law against espionage. Those three 
laws were the main laws on the books federally. And what did they have 
in common? Well, just exactly your point. Piracy, counterfeiting and 
espionage against our country were against the general welfare. They 
were laws that affected everything. So laws against murder and rape and 
stealing and all that kind of stuff were all State laws because the 
States made all those laws. So you had a very limited jurisdiction 
federally.
  And now, as you say, we've got all of these different sorts of 
creeping red tape which keep costing. In an insidious way, everybody's 
cost of living keeps slipping up, but you don't really know why, who's 
nibbling all the money out of your wallet. But it's because of a lot of 
those things that you're talking about. And I appreciate that 
perspective you shared with us.
  I promised my good friend from Louisiana, Congressman Scalise, he has 
become, this last year or two, an expert on oil rigs and oil spills and 
everything, but good on many other topics as well. And when we start 
talking about government, I've got to let you have a piece of the 
action, my friend.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank my friend from up the Mississippi River 
in Missouri, Madam Speaker, for yielding to me and talking about this 
important issue, because there seems to be a lot

[[Page 166]]

of energy as we are talking about energy in this House.
  I think yesterday was so exciting to see not only the gavel 
ceremoniously passed from Nancy Pelosi to now Speaker Boehner, but also 
that these principles that are in the Constitution be restored to the 
people.
  This is the people's House, and it should operate as the people's 
House. And I think now it's starting to get back to those principles 
that we articulated today when we read the Constitution, a real 
uplifting experience. It is sad, unfortunately, to note as we look 
through history that this was the first time that the entire U.S. 
Constitution was read on the House floor. I think this should be an 
event that occurs every new Congress so that we reestablish and remind 
ourselves just what we are up here to uphold.
  As we talk about the spending issues of the country, I think one area 
that shows you where spending has gotten out of control is, if you go 
to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, as I know my friend from 
Utah is such a proud proponent: ``The powers not delegated to the 
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, 
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''
  And yet, if you look, so many of the things that we are doing up here 
in Washington, that this Federal Government has gotten so expansive in 
doing, have absolutely nothing to do with powers that were delegated in 
the Constitution.
  In fact, one of the big debates we are going to have here this week, 
our first week here under this new Congress, is about this government 
takeover of health care that a Federal court just ruled is not 
constitutional. The Federal Government, under Federal court ruling now, 
does not have the authority to mandate that American citizens have to 
buy a private product as a condition of citizenship.
  So I think the fact that not only today did we put our money where 
our mouths are by voting to cut our own budgets, because as we are 
talking about cutting all throughout government where there is 
duplication, where there are departments that shouldn't even exist, 
these czars, these 30 or so shadow government figures that are running 
their own, almost, cabinets, like a secret cabinet that is running out 
there, and every one of them has multimillion dollar budgets and 
staffs, and they are not accountable to anybody except the President--
not to the people, not to the Senate, that the Constitution says they 
should be doing. We are going to be going and looking at all of those 
areas to make serious cuts.
  But then we also have to look--and of course tomorrow we will be 
voting on the start of the process--to repeal ObamaCare and do what the 
courts have already said--this isn't constitutional; it shouldn't be on 
the books--and get rid of that constitutional mandate with all the bad 
taxes and other things that go with it.
  But then we have got to look at creating jobs. And I think that's 
where you get into an area where, while we are cutting spending, which 
we need to do aggressively, we also need to unleash the potential of 
the individual.
  It is not government here in Washington that makes this a great 
country, and really the greatest country in the history of the world. 
It's the power of our people back home--the small business owner, the 
stay-at-home mom who is raising a family--the people that actually make 
this country work. And there is no place I don't think any more evident 
of what is wrong with Washington and hurting that opportunity than in 
my home State where you have got this permitorium going on since after 
the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. It's the President's policies, 
not the actions and failures of BP. It's the President's policies that, 
according to the White House, have put 12,000 people out of work 
through what is called a permitorium.
  The government has said all of the companies that didn't do anything 
wrong, the companies that played by the rules, that follow all the best 
safety guidelines in the world and had no problems, now the government 
has shut them down, put them out of work, and they are not even issuing 
permits.
  Mr. AKIN. I can't help but just jump in a little bit.
  It just keeps coming back to my mind, as you talk about the 
particular situation of the job-killing mandates that are coming from 
the administration, I keep thinking an awful lot of Americans must be 
starting to feel the same way I do: that the government is not a 
servant anymore; that it's a fearful master.
  We were warned by the forefathers that if you let your government, 
your Federal Government get out of control, it will become a fearful 
master. It seems to me that that's kind of what is starting to happen. 
And I think the last election was an understanding across the whole 
country that this government needs to be put back in its proper place, 
being a servant of the people and doing programs that are 
constitutional instead of things that people just think of, wow, it 
would be a great idea if we mandate this or mandate that.
  And here you have an example of an area that's already had a tough 
hit from the oil spill, and we are going to take businesses that have 
done nothing wrong and we're going to basically shut them down because 
of some mandate. Somehow or another, I just don't see that as being 
government of the servant. Do you?
  Mr. SCALISE. In fact, it's exactly the opposite of the government 
being the servant. It's the government being the oppressor. And as I 
mentioned, 12,000 jobs have already been lost in south Louisiana alone. 
And these aren't my numbers; this is the White House. And the White 
House and the President's response to that was, well, they could just 
go get unemployment.
  These aren't people who want to get on unemployment rolls. They are 
hardworking people who love and have a great, strong work ethic. They 
want to be contributing to America's energy security. But it's this 
administration that has shut them down and not allowed them to go back 
to work drilling safely.
  And I'm not talking about BP. I'm talking about the companies who 
have played by the rules all along, who have never had any safety 
problems because they follow a higher standard. They are the ones that 
have been shut down and put out of work.
  And not only is it affecting Louisiana in terms of the 12,000 jobs; 
it has now affected America's energy security, because right now, 
nationally, this is a time, once you get out of the summer, where gas 
prices typically start falling again. But what are we seeing? We are 
seeing the opposite of that. Now gas prices are breaking over the $3-a-
gallon mark in many States because, in part, this administration has 
changed our energy policies where we have shut off more areas of energy 
production in America, which means these Middle Eastern countries, many 
of whom don't like us, other foreign countries are now producing the 
energy that we need, which reverses our trade balance. It sends 
billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to foreign countries out of 
America, and then it makes our country less secure, which is why we are 
approaching $100-a-barrel gasoline now, because the Americans have 
basically said through President Obama's policies: We are going to shut 
off most of our sources of known energy. But, of course, our demand for 
energy hasn't dropped in the country, so that means we are now going to 
have to be more reliant on many of these foreign countries who don't 
like us.
  So it has not only devastating consequences in terms of 12,000 lost 
jobs in south Louisiana, but also devastating effects on America's 
energy security which now we are seeing reflected in these gas prices 
that are now breaking $3 a gallon.
  Mr. AKIN. Congressman, you have talked about Louisiana, and I 
appreciate that perspective, and that's the specifics.
  If we sort of back up a little bit from what you have said and take a 
look, and the subject here that we are talking about today is cutting 
government. If you take a look at the Department of Energy, the 
Department of Energy was founded years and years ago with the purpose 
of making sure that we were not dependent on foreign oil.

[[Page 167]]

  Now, that department has grown with more and more and more buildings 
and bureaucrats and people in it I'm sure with well-meaning intention. 
But as the Department has grown, we have become more dependent on 
foreign oil. Now, there is something in that equation that's 
fundamentally nuts, so we have to take a really good look at this 
subject.
  I am interested, too, and sometimes I point out to my constituents, I 
think people don't understand this, but our opinions in this Chamber 
are pretty divided. If I were to say to some of my constituents that 
there is a big difference between Republicans and Democrats on the 
abortion issue, they would go, Gee, whiz, no big surprise. But they may 
be surprised to know that if you look at voting records, there is a 
bigger difference on development of American energy between Republicans 
and Democrats than there is on the abortion issue. So there is a 
difference of opinion as to whether or not we need to become energy 
independent in this country.
  And I'm glad you've got the common sense to say we need to be energy 
independent; we need to develop all of our resources for energy. And 
the fact that you have taken a strong stand on that, Steve, I think you 
are doing a great job for Louisiana, and it's a treat to have you 
joining us here today and bringing that expertise.
  I am going to run back over to Georgia in a little bit and jump over 
here to Representative Graves. Jump in, please.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Well, thank you for yielding some time. And, 
Madam Speaker, this should be the final few minutes of my discussion as 
I am going to leave and yield to the gentleman from Utah. I sort of 
want to follow up on what he said. But before I do, I want to point out 
that the Republican Study Committee, which I believe all of us are 
members of and actively a part of, is putting together a rescissions 
plan which has $2.6 trillion in cuts identified already that would 
occur over the next 10 years and an amazing set of proposals that, to 
me, as we stand here today in the majority, John Boehner as our Speaker 
that we nominated, we elected, and we are still talking about spending 
being the number one issue. That's how committed we are.
  Going back to the gentleman's statement, he was referring to the 
Constitution and the general welfare clause in the Preamble there. I 
thought I would bring up an interesting point, because it says to 
``promote the general welfare,'' not ``provide the general welfare.'' 
An interesting distinction there. And what a notion we have taken from 
a central government role to want to provide for everyone.
  But if you go one clause prior to that, it says, ``provide for the 
common defense.'' Not ``promote,'' but ``provide'' common defense and 
``promote'' general welfare. Two distinct differences and clauses. And 
we have certainly mistaken that second clause there.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. AKIN. That is such a good point. I don't think it does any harm 
to repeat that. Let's go back to it again. We are talking about the 
preamble to the U.S. Constitution, it sets the whole framework for what 
this country rests on, and you've got two words that are loaded with 
meaning. The first one is the general defense. That's national 
security. The general defense is general. It's security for every 
State, for every American, rich or poor, black or white, male or 
female. When Americans are secure, Americans are secure; and we use 
Federal money to do something that is general. And it's not to 
encourage it; it's to provide for that defense.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Clearly the word is provide for common 
defense.
  The next phrase or clause is then promote general welfare. Not 
provide. Promote the general welfare.
  Mr. AKIN. Now I think there were Federalist papers that were written 
to help make that point and to define the fact that to promote general 
welfare is not a clause big enough to run tanks through and say that 
anything that seems like a nice thing to do for somebody is 
constitutional.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. You're right. I will wrap up with this, two 
quotes from two very different Presidents. Ronald Reagan once said: 
``Revenue is not the problem; spending is the problem.'' We all know 
that. But then another quote is this: ``Increasing America's debt 
weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means the buck 
stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices 
today onto the backs of our children and our grandchildren. America has 
a debt problem and a failure of leadership.''
  Mr. AKIN. Now who was it who said that? Was that Ronald Reagan?
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. ``Americans deserve better.'' End quote. That 
was then-Senator Barack Obama on the Senate floor.
  Mr. AKIN. So there's a big difference between Senate and Presidency 
apparently.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. A big difference.
  But he is absolutely correct that America has a debt problem and a 
failure of leadership. Mr. President, here is your opportunity.
  Mr. AKIN. And the interesting thing is that if you take George Bush's 
biggest deficit year, which was when Speaker Pelosi was here in 
Congress, 2009, his biggest deficit was one-third of the first Obama, 
which was $1.4 trillion. So what is the connection between the quote 
and the action? I think what we need to do is to take a very, very good 
look at what really is constitutional.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I think the connection is in his quote--a 
failure of leadership.
  Mr. AKIN. A failure of leadership. His own words.
  Thank you, Congressman. It has been a treat to have you joining us 
here this afternoon.
  I want to run back over to Utah to my good friend, Congressman 
Bishop.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you.
  I do appreciate the Congressman from Georgia talking about the 
difference between ``provide'' and ``promote.''
  Let me just go with one historical example of how that works, because 
I think in one of your earlier questions it was said, How are we 
actually going to handle this spending problem? Part of it is we have 
to think outside the box and make some things that have been common 
assumptions not necessarily have to survive.
  And instead of going with some issues that we're funding right now, 
which may be too close to people, let me just go back to history. In 
most of the history books that I do, that I have seen, when we taught 
high school history, they always talk about how this nation came 
together with the uniting of the railroads, the UP and the Central 
Pacific joining together and how the Federal Government subsidized that 
process and was the only viable way of getting that done. We provided 
the railroad system.
  One of the concepts, though, as I was reading another book that took 
a closer look on this issue is that not only did the Federal Government 
help with this railroad building craze but the idea that the Federal 
Government became involved changed the mechanism in which railroads 
were built and the kinds of ways they were built.
  We paid railroads for every mile of track that was laid, which meant 
you gave them more money if they went to a mountainous route than on 
flat land. So many of those routes took a very circuitous route going 
through some elevated terrain because they got more money than if they 
had just taken a simpler flat route. One of the, I won't mention which 
one but they refused to put up masonry supports. They put up wooden 
culverts only for their train tracks. In the winter they laid track 
over ice which meant as soon as the thaw came, the tracks disappeared. 
Much of our railway system had to be rebuilt within 2 years of its 
actual completion.
  I live in the State of Utah and my only national monument is the 
Golden Spike National Monument in my district in which both the Union 
Pacific and the Central Pacific came and they passed one another 
continuing to lay

[[Page 168]]

track because they were paid for it by the Federal Government, until 
Congress finally told them knock the crap off and link up somewhere; 
and they picked Promontory Summit which is in the State of Utah in my 
county to finally link up.
  Ironically enough, in 1893 James Hill built--maybe the Madam Speaker 
has the name of this railroad--Northern Railroad that went from Chicago 
to Seattle. He did that without any government subsidies whatsoever. He 
paid private property for running his lines even during the panic. It 
survived. It was functional. It was profitable.
  Sometimes we make assumptions that only the Federal Government has 
the ability of doing things when in reality we don't. And we forget 
that once again if we were to make States a true partner with us in 
projects, States have the ability of being creative, much more than we 
do; they have the ability of providing justice for its circumstances 
much more than we do; and more importantly if the States make a 
mistake, it doesn't harm the entire country. I think ObamaCare may be 
one of those particular examples, where State creativity was going on a 
proper road with some wonderful ideas that were stopped dead in their 
tracks, no pun intended, by ObamaCare.
  Mr. AKIN. It is interesting that you talk about, there was a great 
little short book, and I don't remember the title of it, gentleman, 
that came out with some of the very facts that you just mentioned, and 
it was a study of how the government in the 1800s got involved in the 
six major industries in America because the assumption was that the 
Federal Government has to get involved in these big industries to make 
us competitive in an industrial world. They got involved in the oil 
industry, the steamship industry, the steel industry; of course the 
railroad industry.
  The example you're talking about, again the government created this 
incentive that you're paid by the mile. So among other things they did, 
they used cheap steel rails which wore out right away and wooden ties 
that were not treated, and also they wouldn't blast which was expensive 
to go up a steep route but they would make these long grades back and 
forth. The result was the company that used all the government money 
had a rail line that you couldn't maintain it. And, as you said, the 
northern route was done totally with private money. They had to scrimp 
and borrow. They built a little piece at a time. At the end of what 
they could build, they would form a little town and they would give 
them free shipping to encourage the trade and they built the railroad 
in pieces that way using the cash that they had. And that, like the 
other industries, the steamship, steel and the oil industries, the same 
pattern occurred where the Federal Government got involved, the 
businesses that were using Federal money all went bankrupt.
  So there was an example where again you think the government's got to 
get involved. The answer was every time the government got involved, 
the companies went bankrupt. That's a good principle.
  Let's get over, though, to take a look at this big picture of how in 
the world do we deal with the budget. One of the big things that 
everybody has been taking a look at, and I know you know this, 
gentleman, and that is that we have this new category that are called 
entitlements. That is, we passed some law; the law then runs like a 
machine and spits out money to people. If you get enough of those 
machines going spending money, pretty soon you've spent a lot of money. 
We've gotten to the point now where Medicare and Medicaid, Social 
Security, are spending almost half of the revenue that the government 
is taking in.
  So when you deal with that, as we take a look at overspending, people 
have projected that if you let Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid 
continue as they are, there will come a time when there will be no 
money for anything else in the budget at all. These are some of the 
hard choices that we have to face.
  It seems to me, gentleman, as we have made an emphasis on the 
Constitution; in fact, in the rules package that was passed yesterday, 
we have created a new mandate that every bill that comes to this floor 
has to have a constitutional justification. I think that's the start of 
where we really have to get at this problem, and that is, what really 
is the job of the Federal Government and can we afford to be all things 
to all people.
  I just wanted to let you piggyback on that.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate that very well, because, to be very 
honest, this is not an easy task which this Congress faces. We have 
spent probably eight or nine decades digging the hole which we are in. 
To think that there is a simple way of getting out of it is naive. To 
think that in one year we could get out of this is maybe also naive. We 
have to think in terms of moving forward in a general direction that 
would go there.
  I am very proud that the rules that were passed yesterday will enable 
this body, if we decide to do it, to take the time to think outside the 
box with new ideas. The idea that for the first time since the 1960s we 
have set aside a specific time during the day so that the committees 
could function will allow every Member on this floor to sit and work in 
a committee to come up with ideas to reach this goal of how we can 
control or at least limit the runaway spending that we have had.
  Mr. AKIN. I need to stop and interrupt just a minute here, because 
you will never say this, but, Congressman Bishop, you were one of the 
main people that helped put that rule in place and I think the whole 
country needs to say a big ``thank you'' to you, because what you are 
doing is trying to make Congress just a little more efficient and do a 
few commonsense things.
  A lot of people might not say this thinking outside the box, but the 
box is small down here sometimes, and you have provided us with the 
idea that we are actually going to get into some of these questions and 
we are going to approach them in a systematic kind of way. We are going 
to take time and not have votes running all day long so people can't 
focus on their work, and say now, systematically, what do we have to do 
to deal this problem?
  I congratulate you on the first step, and also the rules package that 
says you have got to have a constitutional justification for everything 
you bring to the floor. I think we are starting on the right spot.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. You make me embarrassed right here. I wish I 
could take full credit for the time management plans that we are 
implementing here. I may have said it, but somebody else had to make 
the decision to go forward with it. I think it was the right thing to 
do because it requires us, instead of running around in circles like a 
bunch of squirrels on a treadmill or chipmunks on a treadmill wasting a 
lot of time, we try to focus our energies so that when we are on the 
floor it makes some kind of difference.
  Let me just give one other historical example of what I think we need 
to be doing and dedicate ourselves, since I have been throwing out too 
many already.
  I believe it was in the first Congress that the issue came up of 
postal roads, where to draw the line, where would the postal roads for 
the new Post Office go. There is some kind of economic benefit of 
having actually mail dropped along a route.
  But Congress, eager to get out, said let's just allow the President, 
the executive branch, to decide where the postal routes will be, which 
seems to be a logical thing to do. And I believe it was Congressman 
Paige, I hope from Virginia, who stood up and said, no, our job of 
Congress is to legislate, which includes taking the time to agree on 
where those postal routes will go. It is not our responsibility to give 
it to an executive branch or a bureaucracy or some other group to come 
up with all the details. And he forced Congress to stay there, and they 
did their job.
  Too often we as Members simply have the tendency of coming up with a 
grand and noble idea, and they say all

[[Page 169]]

right, we will empower. I think the language in the TARP bill is a 
perfect example of where we empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to 
make all kinds of decisions which were legislative decisions by their 
very nature.
  Well, I hope what this schedule allows us to do and what you were 
talking about is to say we have a great deal of work to be done here. 
We are still looking at ideas. I am sure there are great ideas that are 
out there that will be coming from the people as time goes on, but we 
have to make sure we dedicate the time to not simply running around in 
circles playing silly games, but coming here and zeroing in on our 
task.
  It was said by you, it was said by the gentleman from Georgia as well 
as the gentleman from Louisiana, it is the spending. That is our 
problem. That is what is hurting jobs, that is what is hurting 
Americans, that is what is bloating our budget. We need to zero in on 
that, and until we do that, we will never come close to meeting what 
the American people expect the Congress to do, nor what we really 
morally need to do.
  I yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. AKIN. Well, I think that Ronald Reagan, you know, he had a way of 
putting complicated things in simple words. He said we are buying more 
government than we can afford. That is not a bad summary of the 
situation. And it hasn't gotten better since Ronald Reagan was here--we 
are buying more government than we can afford.
  I appreciate your historic examples. Of course, there is no way 
Congress can do the example of the postal roads that you made out when 
we are trying to basically do everything under the sun, be all things 
to all people. We are going to have to make some decisions saying this 
is a nice thing to do, but it could be done by a State government or it 
could be done by the private sector.
  We are going to have to make some of those choices and just say, 
look, there are some things that the private sector and the States 
cannot do and we better fund that first. Certainly, providing for the 
common defense is one that has to be up at the front end, because the 
other governments can't do that, and the individual citizens can't do 
that. Whereas when it comes to some of the other kinds of things, such 
as in the energy areas or education or insurance or a lot of those 
things, they could be done by other governments.
  When we start to get into this, hey, let's start to do something that 
feels good about this subject and turn it over to a bunch of 
administration bureaucrats, we have really lost control of where we 
are, and I appreciate your bringing us back to ground zero.
  Now, there have been some shifts. Here is one that is kind of 
interesting, and it is the tradeoff. They always talk about the 
tradeoff between guns and butter, between defense and basically welfare 
programs.
  If you go back to 1965, the entitlement spending was 2.5 percent of 
GDP of the overall budget, 2.5 percent in 1965 was entitlement. Defense 
was 7.4 percent. Now we have shifted to 2010, the estimate is 4.9 
percent is national defense. We have gone from 7.4 down to 4.9 percent, 
while entitlements has gone from 2.5 percent to 9.9 percent in 
entitlements.
  That is getting to that area where if the entitlements continue to 
climb, if you just look at demographics, there will be no money for 
defense or anything else and the budget will be dominated by just 
simply Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
  So we are going to have to ask ourselves what are the top priorities. 
We are going to have to fund those and do a good job at those. That is 
what I was getting at. I don't think we can have the mentality of just 
saying we are going to take 10 percent out of everything or 30 percent 
out of everything. I think we are going to have to make some decisions. 
Some we may not want to cut, we just want to make them more efficient 
and leave that amount of money in it, and other ones we may say it is 
not a matter of cutting it, we don't even need the thing at all. Let's 
just get rid of that entire functional area. That is where we have to 
be going.
  But, again, where we started today is the right place, with the U.S. 
Constitution, and making the key distinctions that the Constitution 
makes so clear. There is a difference for providing for defense and 
then basically encouraging general welfare.
  I appreciate your very specific historic examples. If you remember 
the name of the book, there was a book, I don't know if it was the same 
one you were quoting from, but it had examples of those six industries. 
All of them where the government was in subsidizing the corporations, 
there was all kinds of corruption and the companies all failed, and the 
ones that stayed away from government funding were the ones that stayed 
in business. Just a fascinating study.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If I could just add one comment to that as well. 
I think it is very clear that we need to say it is not that the Federal 
Government will always be bad and is incompetent at doing things. The 
problem the Federal Government has is the size of the Federal 
Government.
  Any big industry has waste, fraud, and abuse, and that is one of the 
reasons why if we could coordinate and work with local governments--
that is why the old cliche that the government that is best is the one 
that is closest to the people. It is not necessarily that they are 
smarter or better; it is because they don't have the problem of size in 
a one-size-fits-all issue and they have the freedom to be creative.
  As you were talking about, especially with the entitlements, this is 
an area in which creativity is going to be the most important element. 
And some things, especially with the cost of Medicare, are driven by 
one-size-fits-all Federal mandates and Federal decisions, when allowing 
creativity could help us solve this problem.
  I also want to say one other thing too when your comment about the 
general defense is so significant. It is not because we are funding for 
the defense of the America today. The decisions we make, the plans we 
make for defense today will not come to fruition for another 10 to 15 
years, and indeed, the ability for us to have diplomacy in the future 
depends on wise decisions that we make today.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri coming with this issue. This 
is something that the people care about, something that the Congress 
cares about. I think the fact that we just passed a 5 percent cut on 
ourselves with overwhelming bipartisan support says that this is the 
direction we should be taking, and we should continue to talk about 
this over and over and over again. I appreciate you allowing me to be 
part of this.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. AKIN. It's just a treat, Congressman Bishop, to have you here 
with us today talking about a very important subject, something that is 
on the front of the minds, I think, of many Americans, understanding 
that we are buying way too much government than we can afford. 
Certainly, the guiding compass and the guiding light for us has got to 
be the U.S. Constitution. And the fact is that we had hundreds of years 
of history, or at least a hundred of years of history, where the 
Constitution has stood us in very good stead. And when we get away from 
our foundational documents and principles, that's when we really start 
to get into trouble.
  The principle on defense that was just made--I have to underscore, 
I'm on the Armed Services Committee. We deal with defense issues day in 
and day out. And the problem in defense is that the things that are on 
the drawing board today won't be fielded for probably 10 years in the 
future. So decisions that we're making today are going to have their 
effect a long way out. And that's why we have to be particularly 
careful. The situation in defense is one that, as you take a look 
around the world, we are rapidly being challenged by China and Russia, 
and we are not keeping up in those arms situations where we do not have 
the capability diplomatically to have options that were otherwise 
available before when we had put enough funding into defense.
  And so as we see entitlements increasing way, way, way up and defense 
being cut down as a percentage of GDP,

[[Page 170]]

we are risking not doing the most fundamental principle in the preamble 
of the U.S. Constitution, which is providing for the national defense. 
And our objective, of course, is not parity. We're not trying to be 
equal with other nations. Our objective is to be overwhelmingly 
superior. That's why we don't have wars, because of the fact that 
people say, We don't want to take on the United States. And it's why we 
can be a great Nation of peacekeeping, because of the fact that we have 
been strong and successful and set a good example for other nations.
  So what we have before us is a very difficult question. It is the 
question of politics in America. If you take a look at all of the 
fights, the debates, the discussions that go on in politics in America, 
most of it revolves around this question, and that is: What should the 
Federal Government be doing? Should it be spending more or less? Should 
it be doing that at all? Or, are we doing a good enough job? That's 
what the discussion and debate is about. And until we get back to the 
Constitution, until we start asking the question, ``Is it necessary for 
the Federal Government to do this function?'' we will never solve this 
problem of overspending.
  The current Congress--and this is my opinion, but one that I think 
other Congressmen that I have discussed this with share, and that is we 
have another problem, and that is the House and the Congress is a 
product of a lot of time. There are various fiefdoms and ways that we 
have gotten accustomed to doing things which may not be very logical or 
practical.
  I've been here 10 years. I have learned about authorization and 
appropriations and about the Budget Committee and the way we do things. 
But if we're going to seriously get at this problem, other than shaving 
a few percent here or there, if we're going to seriously get at the 
problem of having to radically reduce our appetite for spending, it's 
going to require changes in the structure of this Congress. And that 
will be one of the things that you can see we've already started on and 
are continuing and pledging to continue to do--to take a look at our 
rules and how the organization is set up so that we can make those hard 
choices and decisions.
  There has been a commitment that those decisions will be made in a 
transparent way; in a way that everybody who is elected to be a 
Congressman, so that every district in this country will have somebody 
that can stand up and have an opportunity to weigh in and have an 
opinion. You won't see, as we had in the last Congress, bills that are 
being written in the Speaker's office and brought to the floor and 
rammed through in the dead of night. You're going to hear open debate, 
a lot of discussion, and a lot of ideas being discussed. I think that's 
a good thing and a proper thing. But, ultimately, we have to deal with 
the question: What are the essential functions that must happen in 
Federal Government?
  Now, I've just heard that there are going to be some very significant 
cuts in defense. That's very concerning to me. Why would we be taking 
the Defense Department and doing major cuts there and no other 
department in government is being looked at? This is something that 
some of us will probably react to some because we believe we have to 
control spending, but why do you single out the Department of Defense? 
We're fighting two wars. Why are you going to whack that budget when 
you have all these other budgets that have never been touched 
whatsoever? And so we have to take a look at those percentages. When 
you see entitlements going very, very high, defense budget going low, 
that signals that we've got to be careful about the choices we're 
making, because the choices we make today, 10 years from now, your sons 
or daughters or my grandsons and my granddaughters may be affected by 
those choices.
  So we start out a new Congress, I think, on the right foot. Emphasis 
on the U.S. Constitution; emphasis on the fact that we have to be 
responsible; emphasis on the fact that everybody in every congressional 
district is going to have a piece of the action; and the fact that 
we're going to have to be responsible, we're going to have to be 
cutting Federal spending. You cannot run, as we have in the first 2 
years of the Obama administration, with $1.4 trillion deficit. And that 
will stop.

                          ____________________